Service Tax Judgements

The Hon’ble High Court of Madras after observing that there was no audit initiated/ conducted against the Petitioner or in business premises of the Petitioner, held that: - Audit of service recipient, SIPL is not relevant and the Petitioner wa

It can be construed that the consideration received for providing services in relation to the Chit fund business, being merely a transaction in money, would not be exigible to Service tax either prior or post Negative List regime.

It was found that there were substantial grounds for taking lenient view as it indicates that Appellate could not have any mala fide intention to evade payment of Service tax and even Adjudicating Authority waived the penalty under Section 76 by taki

On appeal being filed before the Hon’ble Tribunal by the Revenue, the same was rejected. Being aggrieved, the Revenue filed an appeal before the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh where the Hon’ble High Court directed the Tribunal to consider the law

The Hon’ble CESTAT, Delhi held that Rule 5 of the Excise Appeals Rules has no application in the instant case because a contention that the Appellant was not provider of service but was recipient of service is not 'a piece of evidence', it is a 'plea

The Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad after observing that the Assessee obtained from its Group companies directly or by transfer of the employees, the services of expatriate employees for which the Assessee paid the salaries of the employees in India,

The Petitioner is an Indian citizen and a practicing Advocate. He claims to be affected by the levy of Service Tax on Advocates. It is the case of the Petitioner that section 65(105) (zzzzm) of the Finance Act, 1994 as inserted by the Finance Act 200

Issue Under the laws governing the payment of service tax, Section 68(2) of the Finance Act, 1994, in respect of certain services, provides for shifting the liability to pay service tax to government to the service receiver instead of service pr

Facts indicate that the assessee is a company incorporated in Australia. It was engaged in the business of providing equipment on hiring and manpower etc. for exploration and production of mineral oil and natural gas. During the year under appeal. th

Adverting first to ground no.1 in the appeal , facts, in brief, as per relevant orders are that e-return declaring income of ``28,24,41,510/- filed on 29.09.2008 by the assessee, a foreign company having permanent establishment in India, was selected